Hussein Ibrahim*

Translated by Areej Fatima Husseini

In 1945, Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saudi Arabia’s first king, signed an “oil-for-security” agreement with former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, marking the transfer of leadership of the Western project in the Middle East from Britain to the US. Thus, the mission of protecting the Gulf kingdoms, emirates, and sheikhdoms was shifted from British to American control.  At that time, the usurping Israeli entity was under construction. It arose under British and then American protection, similar to prior kingdoms, emirates, and sheikhdoms but with a different system and tasks. Even at the peak of Arab opposition to Israel’s occupation of Palestine, Abdul Aziz seemed apathetic about it, implying that he effectively sold Palestine at the time.

US Ancient Dominance over the Gulf

Since its inception, the relationship between the West – led by Britain and then the US – and the Gulf and Israel has been a structural one. It was so even before the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, which the Gulf played a crucial role, where Abdul Aziz fought the Ottomans until he ousted them from the Arabian Peninsula.

In fact, the US tracks almost every succession change in the Gulf states, whether from one ruler to another or from one generation to the next. However, this is the missing element in the issue of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al-Saud inheriting the Saudi throne. Therefore, any defense agreement discussed between Saudi Arabia and the US primarily prioritizes protecting Bin Salman from his internal opponents before external ones by adopting his reign and settling any power dispute with American assurance and blessing. Following in the footsteps of Britain, the US favors one group over another within a single family or tribe, ensuring the fulfillment of its schemes and dominance over the reign. Hence, when concerns developed about the probability of any change, it was because the US sought to cut the cost of this protection, or possibly withdraw it entirely in recent years, rather than because the Gulf regimes no longer required it.

East Asia Replaces the Gulf

Strategic analysts in the West, who have early knowledge of what is being planned, have spoken extensively about how the Middle East is no longer a top priority for Washington. This analysis negates the justification for the presence of American forces there, at least in their current massive numbers, and justifies better utilization of these capabilities in East Asia, where China represents an imminent threat due to its economic growth and global expansion, reaching the Middle East, specifically the Gulf, which is now one of the world’s fastest-growing regions.

In a clearer sense, the Chinese threat has shifted to the Middle East, where the US must tackle it. Thus, there is no longer any necessity for American military forces to be transferred to East Asia. Furthermore, the Ukraine war, which is draining and exhausting the West, necessitates staying in areas from which Russia has traditionally been besieged, namely the Middle East, prompting some Russian officials to accuse the US of planning to return to Afghanistan after only two years of fleeing it.

This is the framework in which the US-Saudi-Israeli agreement is usually crafted; the rest is details. Whenever Riyadh, with its new regime, is confident in American security, it no longer matters to Bin Salman whether or not Israel makes so-called “concessions” with the Palestinians. That is, according to the crown prince, Saudi Arabia and even the Saudi regime come first and foremost.

A Defense Treaty to Protect Bin Salman

Also, regardless of the details of the security or military treaty being discussed between the US and Saudi Arabia and regardless of its form, there is one fundamental element that will not be officially included in any treaty. This element is deemed a prior American acknowledgment of Bin Salman’s “legitimacy” to legally succeed his father when the time comes, whether in life or after death, although the Americans were to reject, not embrace.

Hence, it makes no difference whether the treaty is created in the South Korean, Japanese, or Bahraini styles, with some added features, because these are the models that the US accepts and they are the ones that allow Washington to avoid defending another country when it desires, facilitating its passage by the Congress.

As a result, no treaty proposal would bind Washington to the same obligations as NATO member states, especially in light of Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which considers assaulting one of its members to be attacking all of its countries. Even if the Saudi Kingdom could become a primary non-Atlantic ally of the US, such as `Israel`, it is doubtful that it could gain the latter’s advantages. This is because the standards of this classification are Israeli, not Atlantic, and the Israeli occupation forces don’t adhere to what Atlantic forces adhere to when it comes to attacks. However, the actual American commitment to Israel’s security is stronger than Washington’s commitment to any other country, whether inside or outside the Atlantic.

Consequently, Saudi normalization with `Israel`, which could be announced at any time, will merge all the US agents in the region, a scenario that has been impossible for the last seven decades due to Arab popular hostility to Israel. Given the Arab world’s state of division and turmoil, the normalization step has now become achievable.

Saudi Popular Stance on Normalization

Evidently, this is what the US is planning. On the other hand, according to those in the region who disagree, what will happen between Saudi Arabia and Israel is the fall of another key Arab regime into the pit of normalization in exchange for the illusion of “American security.”

Just like the Arab people, whose regimes normalized ties with `Israel`, the Saudi people also had their say. They tried to express their rejection of normalization and refusal to give up the rights of the Palestinian people, who clearly will not receive anything under the expected agreements.

Israelis witnessed this rejection as well. According to Ohad Hemo, Channel 12’s correspondent for Arab and Palestinian affairs, who prepared a report from Jeddah on “New Saudi Arabia,” the Saudis are not eager for normalization. This conclusion was based on interviews he conducted with several Saudis without them knowing that Hemo is Israeli.

Despite its danger, the new Saudi turn will not change much in the world or even within the region, neither in terms of readjusting the balance of power in favor of the US, nor in terms of reversing the Saudi relationship with Iran or the path of peace in Yemen, nor in trade relations with China or oil with Russia.

In a nutshell, it is a barter deal in which Bin Salman draws inspiration from his ancestor’s history by normalizing ties with `Israel` and selling Palestine again, believing that it’s the closest way to obtaining the American guarantee and even passing it through all the necessary channels within the US.

*: Hussein Ibrahim wrote this artcle (translated and edited by Al-Manar) for Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar (published on Monday, October 2, 2023).

Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper